The Senate’s Thomas Perez Test

“The president shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States….” Article II, U.S. Constitution

Since the start of his second term, President Obama has sought to stock his Cabinet with leftists whose records should have been subjected to exacting scrutiny, but that by and large were given a pass. Even on the basis of what did come to light in at least two of those cases – Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and CIA Director John Brennan – the Senate should have provided its advice and dissented to the nominations.

Emboldened by the failure of sufficient numbers of senators to object to these deeply problematic appointments, Mr. Obama has now presented them with what is, arguably, his most outrageous pick to date: the nomination of Thomas Perez to become the next Secretary of Labor.

If the United States Senate advises and consents to the appointment of such a selection, it will effectively allow the notion that the Senate must rubber-stamp whomever the president nominates to supplant the clear “quality-control” role the Framers envisioned when they conceived of the Constitution’s Article II check-and-balance on executive branch officers. Call it the Perez Test.

Here are but a few of the reasons why Tom Perez must be denied a promotion to Cabinet rank:

J. Christian Adams, a courageous, whistle-blowing former career Department of Justice attorney who worked for a time under Perez in the latter’s current capacity as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, recently wrote at Breitbart.com a scathing assessment of Perez’s record in that job. Adams witnessed first-hand the application of Perez’s attitude, now documented by an Inspector General report, that civil rights laws “are only meant to protect black victims from white defendants.” So much for equal justice under the law.

Other examples of the selective enforcement of the law under the Perez Civil Rights Division at Justice have included: clearly politicized interventions on voting rights matters – even, in some cases, going against the recommendations of his Department’s own professionals; opposing voter identity and voter roll-integrity initiatives intended to mitigate the threat of fraud; and insisting on racial hiring preferences, even after the Supreme Court invalidated the practice.

In addition, the Eric Holder-Tom Perez Justice Department has been notoriously lax in enforcing federal immigration laws. Perez also has presided over DoJ’s persecution of states that seek to enforce those laws.

Such an attitude should hardly come as a surprise given Perez’s past chairmanship of Casa de Maryland, which Christian Adams describes as “a radical Hugo Chavez-funded organization which facilitates criminal immigration. They train illegal aliens how to avoid capture.” It is hard to imagine entrusting the Labor Department and federal labor policy to a man who has worked for years to assist in the violation of relevant U.S. statutes.

One other, particularly worrisome aspect of Perez’s record that should not be implicitly, let alone explicitly, endorsed by the Senate is his enthusiastic embrace of Islamists and their causes. In October 2011, he did so literally with such enthusiasm that he leapt onto a stage at George Washington University in order to hug the leader of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States: Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

His division has also intervened in court to force a school in Illinois to give a new teacher time off with pay to make the pilgrimage to Mecca called the hajj. It has assisted Islamist groups in securing the purging of government training materials and trainers that might “offend” Muslims. And in July 2012, Perez refused to answer House Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Trent Franks, who sought assurances that his department will “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.”

It is hard to square an unwillingness to answer that question forthrightly with the oath of office Tom Perez has taken in the past. In accordance with the old adage “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” he should be considered ineligible to promise again that he will uphold and defend the Constitution.

Thomas Perez is, in short, the poster child of Team Obama’s notorious practice of putting politics over public safety. Before coming to federal office and during his past four years at the Justice Department, he has promoted the radical left’s agendas and those of its allies in Islamist circles. He has done so at the expense of the rights of all Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness safeguarded from all their enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Senate must rise to the Perez Test. To do so, it needs to examine thoroughly Tom Perez’s record and then recognize that, in a case like this one, the President’s latitude to pick whom he chooses to staff his administration cannot be allowed to trump the Senate’s constitutional duty to exercise its advice and consent by blocking a clearly unsuitable nominee for the position of Secretary of Labor.

Most Shared CFP stories

Latest American NewsEscaped prisoner considered ‘armed and dangerous’; Inova Fairfax Hospital on lockdown | U.S. Should Stop Collecting Allies Like Facebook Friends: Alliances Should Benefit America | Seattle Mayor Prohibits City Employees From Traveling to Indiana

Latest World NewsApple Bashes Indiana – But Promotes Business in Countries That Execute Gays | Facebook illegally tracks all visitors to its site even if they do not have accounts | Iranian troops advance towards Israeli border

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2014 the individual authors.